Data Protection
DPOrganizer
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by DPOrganizer AB · dporganizer.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
DPOrganizer is a data protection product from DPOrganizer AB, part of DataGuard. Its public pages name a wide capability menu — data mapping, data subject requests, third-party risk management, incident & breach management, DPIA & risk assessment, reporting & visualization, consent & preference management, cookie management and whistleblowing — plus frameworks GDPR, ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2 and the EU AI Act, and a platform section listing APIs, integrations and AI-powered automation. Integrations and automation score strongest, at 3-4, though we found no public information on specific connectors, API documentation, SSO or directory import, and the "automate up to 40% of tasks" claim shows no stated basis. Judges spread from 2 to 4 on privacy management and framework coverage: breadth of named modules earns credit, but no public information shows how records link to legal bases, TOMs or processors, or covers UK or Swiss privacy variants. Sovereignty scores lowest of the substantive criteria at 1-2 — we found no public information on hosting location, a DPA or subprocessors — and rights and incident handling sits at 2-3 with no public information on statutory clocks or deletion workflows. No prices appear publicly.
Speaks for it
- Integrations and automation score highest at 3-4, with APIs and integrations named under Platform.
- A broad capability menu is named in product form, from data mapping and DPIA & risk assessment to third-party risk management and whistleblowing.
- The framework list spans GDPR and the EU AI Act alongside ISO 27001, TISAX and NIS2.
- The vendor presents as a European entity — DPOrganizer AB, part of DataGuard — which several rationales read as a European starting point.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores 1-2; we found no public information on hosting location, a published DPA or a subprocessor list.
- Audit readiness sits at 2-3, with Reporting & Visualization the only named evidence feature and no public information on revision-safe change history or auditor access.
- Rights and incidents score 2-3, with no public information on statutory clocks, 72-hour authority notification or deletion workflows behind the named modules.
- The "automate up to 40% of tasks" claim shows no stated methodology, and no specific connector, SSO or API documentation is public.
- We found no public information on prices, editions or billing terms.
Best for
- You need one product holding named modules for data mapping, DPIAs, third-party risk, data subject requests and breaches rather than document folders.
- Your compliance scope pairs GDPR with security regimes (ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2) and the EU AI Act, not UK or Swiss privacy variants.
- You are shortlisting on breadth of named capabilities and will verify connector coverage, SSO and the data model directly with the vendor.
Avoid if
- You must see hosting location, a published DPA and a subprocessor list before shortlisting — the public pages carry none of it.
- You need statutory deadline automation and 72-hour breach notification output — we found no public information on either.
- You operate under UK GDPR, Swiss nDSG or other national privacy variants — only GDPR and the EU AI Act appear among privacy regimes.
- You must evidence your register's state at a past date for auditors — only Reporting & Visualization is named publicly.
The scores
Records & DPIA depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The DSMS core: records of processing (RoPA/VVT), data protection impact assessments, processor/DPA management and TOMs — how deeply the legal artifacts are modeled and connected.
0 — Document templates in a folder tree; the "register" is a Word file with version numbers in the filename.
3 — A structured RoPA with basic fields and a DPIA questionnaire, but processors, TOMs and legal bases live outside the system.
5 — RoPA and DPIA as linked modules with templates; processor management and TOM assignment exist but are shallow, and group reuse is copy-paste.
8 — A connected data model — processing activities linked to systems, processors, TOMs and legal bases — with DPIA triggers derived from the record, reusable group templates, and outputs a supervisory authority accepts.
10 — Privacy records as a system of record: the RoPA drives DPIAs, processor management and TOM coverage from one data model, multi-client/mandate capability included, and the documentation is audit-ready without manual assembly.
The External DPO
Data mapping, DPIA and risk assessment, and third-party risk management are named capabilities, so the core privacy registers exist in product form. The captured page shows nothing about how activities link to systems, processors, TOMs or legal bases, and we found no public information on reusable templates or multi-mandate handling for consultancies. 1
The In-House Counsel
Data Mapping, DPIA & Risk Assessment and Third-Party Risk Management are listed as product capabilities, so records, assessments and processor oversight sit inside one product rather than in document folders. We found no public information on legal bases, TOMs, reusable group templates, or whether the modules share a connected data model that produces authority-accepted output, so I cannot credit the depth an audit depends on. 1
The Drafted Generalist
The product page names Data Mapping, DPIA & Risk Assessment and third-party/vendor management, so a register-and-assessment core is being advertised. We found no public information on how processing records, processors, security measures and legal bases link together, or on reusable templates, so I can't credit anything beyond basic modules of unknown depth. 1
The Lead Auditor
The captured page names a broad module set — data mapping, DPIA and risk assessment, third-party risk management, consent and cookie management — which is more than a folder of templates and suggests processors are managed inside the system. We found no public information on how records of processing connect to TOMs, legal bases, or reusable group templates, so the connected data model I look for is unproven. Named modules without visible linkage. 1
The IT Integrator
The captured page names Data Mapping, DPIA & Risk Assessment and Third-Party Risk Management as capabilities, which puts a structured register and a DPIA module on the table, but we found no public information on how processors, TOMs and legal bases are modeled or linked to the record, so I can only credit the basic-register stage. 1
The Skeptic
The homepage names data mapping, DPIA and risk assessment, third-party risk and vendor management as capabilities, but a capability menu is not a data model — we found no public information on record fields, templates, TOMs, legal bases or any linkage between them. Module names on a marketing page sit below a demonstrably structured register. 1
Data subject rights & incidents
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The operational half of the DSMS: data subject request handling with statutory clocks, breach register and authority notification, deletion concepts that actually delete.
0 — Requests arrive by email and live there; breaches are a phone call and a memo.
3 — A request log and a breach list exist, but deadlines are manual, intake is unstructured, and deletion rules are documentation rather than workflow.
5 — DSR workflows with the Art. 12 clock tracked, structured breach register with the 72-hour clock, deletion concepts assignable to records; automation is reminders.
8 — Intake channels for requests (portal/form), identity-check support, deadline automation with escalation, breach severity assessment and authority-report output, deletion rules tied to the RoPA with execution tracking.
10 — Rights and incidents as operations: end-to-end request handling an authority audit walks through, breach workflows that produce the Art. 33 notification, and deletion automation with evidence that the deletion happened.
The External DPO
Data subject request handling and incident and breach management appear as named modules, but nothing evidences statutory clock tracking, structured intake channels, or deletion workflows tied to the records of processing. The twelve-day and seventy-two-hour clocks are what I bill for, and we found no public information on either. 1
The In-House Counsel
Data Subject Request and Incident & Breach Management appear as modules, which evidences structured handling rather than an email inbox, and Consent & Preference Management is also named. We found no public information on the Article 12 clock, the 72-hour breach clock, escalation, severity assessment, authority-report output, or deletion execution tracking — and without evidence the breach workflow produces the Article 33 notification, I cannot score higher. 1
The Drafted Generalist
Data Subject Request and Incident & Breach Management appear as named capabilities, so requests and breaches at least have a home beyond my inbox. We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, request intake, authority reporting or deletion workflows — the parts I would live in every week. 1
The Lead Auditor
Data subject requests and incident & breach management are both named capabilities, so the operational half exists as more than an inbox. We found no public information on statutory clocks, intake channels, authority-report output, or deletion execution tracking. Until deadline automation is shown, this sits at the log-and-list level. 1
The IT Integrator
Data Subject Request and Incident & Breach Management appear as named capabilities, but nothing captured shows statutory clocks, structured intake, 72-hour authority notification or deletion execution — the operational half is present as labels only. 1
The Skeptic
Data subject requests and incident and breach management appear as named capabilities alongside whistleblowing, but the page shows nothing about statutory clocks, 72-hour authority output, intake channels, identity checks or deletion execution; we found no public information on any of it. Two feature names are thinner evidence than a request log with manual deadlines. 1
Privacy regime coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which privacy regimes the product actually operationalizes — GDPR, BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy, EU AI Act privacy duties — and whether one record maps across them or each regime is a fresh island.
0 — One regime, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".
3 — GDPR plus one national law as separate checklists; the same processing activity is documented once per regime.
5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer duties (AI Act, ePrivacy changes) present as content packs of varying depth.
8 — Broad current coverage with one-record-many-regimes mapping and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.
10 — Regime coverage as a living product: multiple privacy regimes on one data basis, per-country variants, and documented update cadence when the law moves.
The External DPO
GDPR and the EU AI Act are named alongside security frameworks (ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2), but no national privacy regime such as the German BDSG, the Swiss nDSG or UK GDPR appears, and we found no public information on one-record-many-regimes mapping. For cross-border client mandates that absence decides the score. 1
The In-House Counsel
GDPR and the EU AI Act are named alongside ISO 27001, TISAX and NIS2, which evidences some regime breadth including newer AI duties. We found no public information on UK GDPR, Swiss nDSG, ePrivacy or national variants, on one-record-many-regimes mapping, or on any update cadence when the law moves — and I reject tools whose legal content nobody visibly maintains. 1
The Drafted Generalist
The frameworks list shows GDPR and EU AI Act alongside ISO 27001, TISAX and NIS2, so several regimes are in the product rather than on a roadmap. We found no public information on whether one processing record maps across regimes, or on national variants such as Swiss or UK rules. 1
The Lead Auditor
The framework list names GDPR and the EU AI Act alongside ISO 27001, TISAX and NIS2, which shows current multi-framework positioning. On privacy regimes specifically, GDPR is the only one named; we found no public information on national variants, Swiss or UK regimes, or one-record-many-regimes mapping. I record it at the single-regime-plus-content-pack level. 1
The IT Integrator
GDPR and the EU AI Act are listed, but inside a broader GRC mix alongside ISO 27001, TISAX and NIS2; we found no public information on one-record-many-regimes mapping, per-country variants such as UK GDPR or Swiss nDSG, or any update cadence when the law moves. 1
The Skeptic
The framework strip lists GDPR alongside ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2 and the EU AI Act — a set that is mostly security regimes rather than privacy law — and we found no public information on Swiss or UK variants, ePrivacy, per-country differences or whether one record maps across regimes. GDPR plus an AI Act badge is the full extent of the privacy-relevant evidence. 1
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.
0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.
3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.
5 — Versioned records, standard report generators for the core registers, evidence attachments per activity; assembling a full audit file still takes days.
8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management and authority reports current at a click, auditor access roles.
10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous documentation status per regime and scope, exportable proof packs an auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".
The External DPO
Reporting and visualization is a named capability, which is a start for client-ready output. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or reconstructing the state of a register on a given date. 1
The In-House Counsel
Reporting & Visualization is offered as a capability, so standard reports exist in some form. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or an answer to "show me the state on date X" — the standing proof state is exactly what a supervisory authority asks me for, and nothing here evidences it. 1
The Drafted Generalist
Reporting & Visualization is listed as a capability, so reports exist in some form. We found no public information on revision-safe history, evidence collection, auditor access or showing the state on a past date, so I can't credit more than basic report generation. 1
The Lead Auditor
Reporting and visualization is named as a capability, so reports presumably exist, but a dashboard is not an evidence pack. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or answering 'show me the state on date X' — the first question I ask in every audit. Reports named, trail unproven. 1
The IT Integrator
Reporting & Visualization is named as a capability, but we found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence packs, auditor access roles or a date-certain state view, so audit proof assembly looks unverified rather than a standing state. 1
The Skeptic
"Reporting & Visualization" is the only audit-relevant phrase we found, and we found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence packs, auditor access roles or reconstructing the state at a past date. A report-generator feature name is not defensible proof. 1
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, ticketing, API — and automates the recurring privacy work instead of re-typing it.
0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.
3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.
5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.
8 — Real connector set (ticketing, HR or asset sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, workflow automation with delegation and escalation, useful AI assistance with human review.
10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, bidirectional sync with the estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil (reviews, attestations, evidence pulls) rather than renaming it.
The External DPO
The platform navigation names APIs, integrations and AI-powered automation, with a claim of automating up to 40% of tasks. No specific connector, directory import, SSO, webhook or documented API surface is evidenced, and we found no public information on live connections into a client IT estate. 1
The In-House Counsel
The platform section names APIs and integrations, and the vendor markets AI-powered automation with experts in the loop and a claim to automate up to 40% of tasks. We found no public information on which connectors actually exist, directory import, SSO or SCIM, webhooks, or what the automation executes and reviews — a marketing percentage is not a connector set. 1
The Drafted Generalist
The platform section advertises APIs, Integrations and AI-powered automation, with a claim of automating up to 40% of tasks. We found no public information on which connectors exist, directory import, single sign-on, or what that automation actually covers, so I can't tell the machinery from the marketing. 1
The Lead Auditor
APIs and integrations have their own platform section, and the vendor claims automation of 'up to 40% of tasks' with AI assistance and experts in the loop. Not a single connector is named, though: we found no public information on directory import, ticketing, SSO, or what the API actually covers. A named API with unnamed connectors lands below the documented-API-with-a-connector-set bar. 1
The IT Integrator
APIs and Integrations are listed under Platform and the vendor claims it can automate up to 40% of tasks, but we found no public documentation of the API's core objects, directory import, ticketing connectors, webhooks or SSO/SCIM — exactly the pieces I need to feed this from Entra ID and Jira instead of retyping, so a label above zero but below a documented connector set. 1
The Skeptic
A platform menu advertises APIs and integrations and "AI-Powered Automation", capped by the claim to "Automate up to 40% of tasks" — a number with no methodology or basis shown anywhere — while "Experts-in-the-Loop" in the same menu suggests consultants packaged into the product. We found no public information on API documentation, connectors, SSO, webhooks or directory import, so this scores at import-export territory at best. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the compliance record of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. A platform that maps your processing is itself your most concentrated processing.
0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your RoPA.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.
5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The External DPO
The vendor is a Swedish company, part of DataGuard, which places the entity in Europe; beyond that, the record carries no hosting location, no data-center detail, no published DPA and no subprocessor list. For the system that would hold thirty clients' records of processing, we found no public information on the rest of the chain. 1
The In-House Counsel
DPOrganizer is part of DataGuard and presents as a Swedish-registered entity, which is a European starting point. We found no public information on hosting locations and named data centers, the DPA and TOMs, or the subprocessor list — and for the system that would hold our register of processing, that silence on where the compliance record lives is not something I can sign off on. 1
The Drafted Generalist
The only governance fact captured is that DPOrganizer is part of DataGuard; we found no public information on where data is hosted, on a published data processing agreement, or on subprocessors. For the platform that would hold our entire compliance record, that silence leaves nothing to evaluate and no basis to score meaningfully above the bottom. 1
The Lead Auditor
The vendor is a Swedish-form limited company — the AB in its name — and states DPOrganizer is part of DataGuard, which answers the entity question in Europe's favor. Everything else is dark: we found no public information on hosting location, named data centers, a published DPA, or a subprocessor list, and this for the system that would hold the buyer's own processing record. A European entity with the rest undocumented. 1
The IT Integrator
The only fact on record is that DPOrganizer is part of DataGuard; we found no public information on hosting location, data centers, DPA or subprocessor list, which is thin ground for a platform that would hold the RoPA of an entire company. 1
The Skeptic
The page states the company is part of DataGuard and nothing else about where the compliance record would live; we found no public information on hosting location, named data centers, subprocessors, a DPA or jurisdictional exposure for the system that would hold the RoPA. A buyer is given nothing whatsoever to evaluate on sovereignty. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.
0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, entity counts or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.
5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a 10-client consultancy is a two-minute exercise.
The External DPO
The captured page shows no price, edition or billing information; we found no public pricing of any kind. I cannot compute the invoice for a ten-client consultancy from this, though unpublished pricing is the norm this criterion simply describes. 1
The In-House Counsel
The captured pages carry no prices, editions, billing periods or module figures, and we found no public pricing information at all. A buyer cannot compute even an entry-level invoice from public material, so every configuration would be a sales conversation. 1
The Drafted Generalist
We found no public information on prices, editions, modules or billing terms anywhere in the captured material. With "Experts-in-the-Loop" in the navigation suggesting people-hours alongside the software, I have no way to estimate a real invoice — no number of any kind appears. 1
The Lead Auditor
The captured page carries no prices, and we found no public information on edition tiers, module pricing, billing periods, or setup fees. From public pages alone the real invoice is not computable — every configuration is a sales conversation. That is the norm in this market, but the evidence shows exactly this band and I record it as such. 1
The IT Integrator
We found no public pricing information at all in the captured pages — no editions, modules, entity counts or billing periods — so no real invoice can be computed from public material alone. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public pricing information of any kind — no edition names with numbers, no billing period, no module prices, no separation of software from services. With nothing published, no buyer can compute even a rough invoice from the public pages, and every real figure must come from a sales conversation. 1
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (dporganizer.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (dporganizer.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page dporganizer.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →